Comments on: Criminal Damage Now Legal

By: Careless

Careless — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 05:45:22 +0000

Just another chapter in the book on the stupidity of juries. I’d love to see their faces when someone pointed out that they’d just voted to allow random vandals to destroy their cars.

By: Nearly Oxfordian

Nearly Oxfordian — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 12:25:17 +0000

OT: does anyone know where the Funnye, you don’t look Jewish thread is? Thanks.

By: Nearly Oxfordian

Nearly Oxfordian — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 10:58:57 +0000

“Oh, sorry, I forgot the Brits are now down to the level of worrying about knives”

CleVER!

By: Alec Macpherson

Alec Macpherson — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:46:25 +0000

X, please go back and read what I wrote. I was not suggesting this particular bunch of muppets have it in them to commit acts of violence. I said there are, on the periphery of the Greens or animal rights, individuals there to express their inner violence. It is they who, even when criminal damage was criminal damage was criminal damage, were vandalizing property and threatening employees and their families and, yes, laying explosive devices.

Besides, a booby-trap could simply be a piece of direct action, which an irresponsible ‘activist’ who thinks it’s all a computer game in which he or she acts as a para-muppitary without consequence, causes serious injury or death. Slashes car tyres and causes a fatal crash; drives pegs into trees about to be felled, and a lumberjack gets one through the skull.

By: Brosco Pertwee

Brosco Pertwee — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:28:33 +0000

Can I shoot one of these guys (all in the interests of a higher cause and all) and not be guilty of murder? Oh, sorry, I forgot the Brits are now down to the level of worrying about knives. Pretty soon they will be worrying about spoon attacks. Blackstone must be rolling over in his grave. I am glad my grandparents took that boat.

By: XofTheX

XofTheX — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:24:38 +0000

XofTheX, likelihood of conviction ain’t what’s worrying me the most. What is is the prospect of fruitloops tagging along with the Green (and, I am distinguishing them from environmentalists) who’ll take it to the next level

A slogan was daubed on a chimney. The ‘next level’ might be daubing it on a car, perhaps. I think it would have to escalate through quite a few ‘levels’ before I would get worried about a threat to life & limb.

For much of the late 1990s, until the Admiral Duncan bombing, such rightists were the main terrorist threat in Great Britain; and continued to be so until 11/9. What next? One of those scroats lays a booby-trap which injures or maims? Oh, they’ll be convicted, which will make the victims feel so much better

Huh? This acquittal for criminal damage makes you think that Nazis might start engaging in violent acts of terror? That’s a pretty forced connection! I think a more likely scenario might be that animal rights groups commit acts of vandalism in order to stop ‘animal torture’ and claim lawful excuse for doing so.

I fail to see how this acquittal will make any difference to the character of political protest as she is practised in this country. Such acquittals have happened in the past and there wasn’t a sea-change then so I don’t why there should be one now.

By: Alec Macpherson

Alec Macpherson — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:41:16 +0000

By: XofTheX

XofTheX — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 09:02:25 +0000

I find this lawful excuse thing fascinating. So it would be OK to torch my neighbour’s giant Nissan X-Trail to prevent it continuing to assist climate change?

Well the common law right of self defence would permit you to kill your neighbour if you could get a jury to accept that killing him was a proportionate response. Not very likely is it.

By: XofTheX

XofTheX — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 08:55:39 +0000

Not as demented, though, as the judge who did not direct the jury to disregard those idiotic ‘defences’

He is not allowed to. It is a statutory defence and the defendants have a perfect right to deploy it. Perhaps the jury just thought that the CPS were being profligate cunts. They are so often, these days.

By: XofTheX

XofTheX — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 08:51:32 +0000

As things stand, they could not object, in principle, to my smashing all Greenpeace’s windows in, on the basis that I was doing my best to ensure that they’d have less money to spend on shutting down coal fired power stations

The proportionate analogy would be painting a slogan on the walls of Greenpeace’s offices.

I might be convicted. I might be acquitted. On balance, I won’t take the chance

I’d be happy to wager £100 that you’d be convicted if you broke their windows.

But, ideally, political arguments ought not to be conducted by violence, or defended by shoehorning a political argument into a legal defence

I think you are absurdly over-reacting to this case. Not that I have any particular time for the Greens, many of whom I find to be sanctimonious and authoritarian, but you are allowing your parti pris to completely overwhelm your judgement.